Legal Concept Blog

Many of the world’s foremost authorized theorists make their intellectual house in Washington Square as members of our college. We propose a theory of society as an evolutionary system through which the unit of choice is the institutional system related to a specific Blockchain or the State and choice pressures are applied by people deciding to interact within them and have their interactions entered into the public report.

Although CLS has been largely a U.S. motion, it was influenced to an important extent by European philosophers, similar to nineteenth-century German social theorists Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Max Weber; Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfurt school of German social philosophy; the Italian marxist Antonio Gramsci; and poststructuralist French thinkers Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida, representing respectively the fields of history and literary theory.

This Article aims to deal with an all-too acquainted scenario: a federal agency, below the guise of supposed legal interpretation of a statute, earns automated judicial deference for what’s, in reality, its coverage-based interpretation—a situation that, I argue, is translating into courts’ insufficient oversight over agency motion.

It will distinguish between two responses to the shared problem of legitimating state penal energy in a modern liberal democratic state: (1) the failure to understand the legitimatory challenge of modern state penal power specifically (U.S.) and of recent state power in general (England) and (2) the failure to handle the legitimatory challenge of recent state penal energy as a continuous and complete existential risk to the legitimacy of the state (Germany).

Maybe most significantly, little in the present doctrinal panorama focuses on the fee question – simply how much should a municipality (or university) expend in monetary and human resources in an effort to shield the First Modification rights of controversial, provocative, or racist speakers?